seeds wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2020 11:05 pm
Clearly, you and I have a different interpretation of what the word “mind” means.
To me, my mind is not a thought.
No, it is an extension of my personal being that functions as a spatial arena in which my thoughts (and dreams) are rendered and displayed
Ok... then maybe we shouldn't call it "mind" but "consciousness"?
seeds wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2020 11:05 pm
Pardon my awkward syntax, but your personal, lifelong accumulation of memories and dreams (again, “thoughts“) belong exclusively to your “you” and to your you alone, and they only exist because your you exists.
Really... don't you think it might be possible that all these thoughts simply arise without a separate "you" owning them? Without a thinker controlling/thinking them..?
If not, then please tell me what defines this "you". What is it exactly? Is it a thing, a separate entity, that can be experienced (or can you only think about it)?
Also, if there were such a separate controlling "you", then why do "you" not just decide to only think happy thoughts, to never be sad again and live a perfectly happy life?
When you look out the window and see certain objects, a car, a tree, a bird... can you decide not to think "nice tree", or "annoying car"?
And if you do decide not to think a certain thought ever again - are you, from now on, safe from this very thought?
seeds wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2020 11:05 pm
So then, according to you (oh the irony), the idea of “you” is just a conditioned thought.
Yes. Where do you think this persona called "seeds" comes from? You haven't always been this person, right? When you were born there was no "seeds" - or at least you didn't have the slightest idea who/what you are. Over the years you have learned to be a person, you have acquired beliefs, judgements, likes, dislikes... if you would erase this acquired knowledge from your memory, then what is left of "you"?
seeds wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2020 11:05 pm
The question is: what is the nature of this “one” of which you speak? – a “one” that you say “experiences” thought?
Is it not synonymous with the “you”?
And if so, should it not also be categorized as being a thought?
In which case, how in the world does a mere thought have an “experience” of another thought, then another, and another?
If you actually investigate you will find no "one" (and also no "you") that experiences thought (or really anything).
There is only the direct experience itself - pure conscious presence - thats all.
And yes, the "you" - or "I thought" - is only a thought. And you are perfectly right in that a thought can not have an experience - it is "being experienced", it arises in consciousness - but never to consciousness, but rather AS consciousness.
Its like a wave doesn't arise to the ocean, but AS the ocean itself.
seeds wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2020 11:05 pm
However, the problem is that just like most of the non-dualists I butt heads with, you are taking the (Advaita?) concept of non-separation a step too far by assuming that it applies to our minds.
Well... what I am assuming is that it is only thought that introduces the concept of separation in the first place (or really any concept).
I am saying that reality, as it is directly experienced here/now, is perfectly whole, boundless, and that it is only our agreed upon, conventionally accepted conceptual wrapper (the map of reality we belief in) that introduces separation, relativity, objectivity...
seeds wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2020 11:05 pm
The common trait I have noticed when it comes to the proponents of hardcore nondualism is that they never seem to have given any critical thought to what “ultimate reality” would actually be like if there was no separation between conscious agents and their accompanying minds.
"Ultimate reality" is always here, now. Look! What do you see? You see reality, what else do you think you can see?
But then there comes thought and states: "I see a tree."
When investigating this direct experience - reality - and when actually looking for these apparently separate objects, an "I" that is doing the "seeing" of a thing labelled "tree" - then you will always come up empty.
These separate objects are not present in "seeing" - all you actually ever really see is colour. You have never seen a separate thing... yes, we recognise certain patterns of color and label them "tree", but this is an "afterthought" - a map of reality - not the direct experience itself.
seeds wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2020 11:05 pm
If you think that you are capable of directly experiencing the inner-dimension of another person’s mind, then you should be able to tell me or uwot something extremely private and personal about our innermost thoughts and memories.
You are misunderstanding me. All I am saying is that these "innermost thoughts and memories" are actually what you call the "you" - they are "you" (or rather: they contain the belief that there is such a "you" that actually owns these memories).
What happens when you loose all these memories? Are you still you? No! The persona is wiped out, "dead", but the real you (not the thought up you) is still there. You still exist, you still see, smell, feel... even without all these memories, right? You wouldn't know that there is an "I seeing a tree" - but the colours, the sounds, the sensations are still present - not as separate things, simply as pure presence/consciousness itself.
seeds wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2020 11:05 pm
Define and describe what you mean by “real.”
Pinch your arm. Feel that?
Listen to the world. Hear that?
Thats what I mean with "real".
This direct experience has no limitations, it is actually boundless - it is only once we interpret the experience that it turns into an "objective experience". (of course thinking doesn't actually change it - it doesn't matter how many borders one draws onto the map - the terrain will forever be unaffected, whole).
seeds wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2020 11:05 pm
It never ceases to amaze me how a nondualist can deny the existence of the “thinker” of thoughts
Well... as you seem to have found this "thinker of thoughts", can you please describe this entity in some detail?
How exactly is this entity known/experienced?
Can it be seen, heard, tasted, smelled, felt? Or can it only be thought of?